This is an automated archive made by the Lemmit Bot.

The original was posted on /r/collapse by /u/Eunomiacus on 2023-10-06 19:20:44.

I just posted this on /r/degrowth and thought it was worthwhile cross-posting here. (Why incorporating collapse into the degrowth message may be the only way forwards : Degrowth (reddit.com))

The amount of economic activity on Earth is guaranteed to peak and decline, not because humans choose this but because of the laws of physics combined the fact that we are not going to expand into space. So a post-growth era is coming, and the terms “collapse” and “degrowth” appear to be two different ends of a scale rather than binary opposites. Collapse doesn’t have to be fast and it doesn’t have to be complete either – something can half-collapse slowly. The difference between the collapse and degrowth ends of the scale are to do the amount of planning and control involved – at the extreme degrowth end of the scale everything is as planned, controlled and “fair” (whatever that means) as possible, and at the extreme collapse end of the scale it is all involuntary, chaotic and “unfair”.

Inevitably what is actually going to happen will be somewhere in the middle of that scale, rather than either end. There is a “bind” here. What actually provokes meaningful change? How does politics, and subsequently policy, actually start changing? It seems to me that there is likely to be a direct correlation between how far we are towards collapse and how much change is possible. The messaging of degrowth is “The situation is terrible, but we can do this!” The messaging of collapse is “The situation is terrible and we are nowhere near being able to do this!”. The degrowth message perpetuates the current political stalemate – it is just more of the same message that doesn’t work, because it fails to produce sufficient urgency in human minds. It’s not frightening enough. The collapse message breaks the stalemate, but runs a very high risk of replacing it with hopelessness. So we are stuck choosing between an unrealistic message that doesn’t change anything politically and a realistic message which changes politics but not in the way most people want it to change.

These two messages aren’t just competing for effectiveness, but accuracy. The degrowth message is idealistic. It’s not actually true. We quite clearly can’t do this, because the politics is impossible. The collapse message is much closer to the truth, but whether or not it is likely to produce “better” results is highly debatable.

I believe there is a possible escape from this bind. It requires changing the degrowth message to explain what I have explained in this post, which effectively uses the threat of collapse in the western world to motivate people instead of continuing to rely on the threat of ecological damage or global inequality (which clearly doesn’t work). This slight change of messaging is controversial. The problem with it is that the very thing that is actually going to provoke changes in people’s thinking (and then their politics) is also going to make it less likely for them to worry about global inequality. In the west, only people who do not fear for their own wellbeing can afford to be concerned about global inequality.

However, it looks to me like this is the only way out of the bind. It is the only way forwards, politically. The only alternative is the existing stalemate, which will eventually be broken by collapse itself if the threat is insufficient to provoke significant change. Given that this is the case – that it is ultimately going to be impossible to avoid incorporating the threat of collapse as an integral part of the message – then there is no reason to avoid doing so now.

To sum up:

“Degrowth can save the world” is positive message, but not true and perpetuates political stalemate. It won’t work.

“A post-growth world is coming whether we like it or not, and degrowth and collapse are the two ends of a sliding scale of possible ways it can happen” is a true message, is capable of breaking the stalemate, but will break it in ways that focus minds on sustainability at lower levels of organisation rather than the global.

It seems to me that even though the second message is controversial and leads to difficult ethical decisions, it is still preferable to the first message, and ultimately will lead to a better outcome globally as well as at lower levels of organisation. There is no reason to give up completely on global solutions, but I think this cannot happen without the establishment of a new global currency under full democratic control. And that won’t happen unless the existing fiat money system goes down (which is a real possibility).

Thoughts?